This is another review written by Ann Job, who had a different article of hers posted on here about a week ago. She refined and updated her original review, adding mention of the HP debacle

This one was written for MSN Autos website.

Read the original article here. (http://autos.msn.com/vip/job.aspx?modelid=10703&src=vip)



In the Driver's Seat with Ann Job

2004 Mazda RX-8

------------------------------

Pros:

Unique rotary technology
Great fun on winding roads
More room in back seats than expected

------------------------------
Cons:

Confused interior
Purists may prefer real sport coupe
Not the sleekest or prettiest exterior

------------------------------

Summary:
Overall rating is 8.75
------------------------------
Mazda returns to rotary power with its 2004 RX-8 sporty car. The
successor to the popular RX-7, the RX-8 is a fun road machine. It
differs from its predecessor because it has four seats and four
doors.

------------------------------

You know what I kept thinking as I drove Mazda's new RX-8?


What delicious temptation this nicely balanced, rotary-powered,
sporty car offers.

Realize I'm not necessarily talking about driving race-car fast in
this new, 2+2 car.

Sometimes in my test drive, the 2004 RX-8 felt good darting around
a slower car in the city. Other times, it traveled winding roads
like it was glued to the pavement. Sometimes, it was just nice to
be able to snag a small curbside parking spot in San Francisco in
this 14.5-foot-long car.

Introduced in summer 2003, the RX-8 is the long-awaited successor
to Mazda's RX-7, which was a sporty two-seater with a rotary
engine that went out of U.S. distribution after the 1995 model
year as sales lagged.

A key reason for the sales problem: An RX-7 price tag that had
gotten up to around $38,000.

The RX-8, with its more modern features and new-generation
Renesis rotary engine, not to mention a back seat for two and golf
club-toting trunk, has a starting manufacturer's suggested
retail price that's some $12,000 less.

Specifically, at introduction, an RX-8 with automatic transmission
had a starting manufacturer's suggested retail price around $25,000.
A version with the six-speed manual started at more than
$26,000.

Rotary history
No other automaker offers a mass-produced passenger vehicle with a
rotary engine.

The rotary internal combustion engine is firmly entrenched in
Mazda history. A four-rotor engine helped Mazda become the first
Japanese carmaker to win an overall victory in 1991 in the famous
24 Hours of Le Mans.

Rotary engines work by handling intake, compression, combustion
and exhaust, one after another, via a turning, triangular-shaped
rotor in a cocoon-like combustion chamber.

Rotaries are compact power plants, known to be smooth and high-
revving, which was consistent with the RX-8 tester with manual
transmission, whose redline was at 9000 rpm.

Torque isn't necessarily the best. The manual RX-8 with 1.3-liter,
twin-rotor, naturally aspirated rotary that I drove was rated at
159 lb-ft of torque at 5500 rpm. This moves the RX-8 from 0 to 60
miles an hour in an estimated 6.4 seconds, not exactly a top
number among sportst-ers.

In comparison, a 2003 Mazdaspeed Protégé with a turbocharged four
cylinder could put out 160 lb-ft of torque at a low, 3500 rpm.

A big "oops"
Horsepower is better. Embarrassingly for Mazda officials, they had
to restate and lower the RX-8's horsepower numbers in late summer
2003 after discovering they had publicized the
numbers for the Japan engine, not the U.S.
engine which had to comply with U.S. fuel efficiency standards.

For the record, the RX-8's rotary is capable of 197 horsepower
with automatic transmission and 238 horses with six-speed manual.

Mazda officials have offered to buy back cars from people who
purchased an RX-8 believing the earlier horsepower numbers. If a
buyer chooses to keep his or her RX-8, the company can provide
free maintenance during the warranty period and a $500 credit for
gasoline.

Sadly, this is not the first time Mazda had this issue. In 1999,
the company restated the horsepower on its Miata roadster.

Four doors and four seats
Purists may cringe, but Mazda wanted to make the RX-8 a usable,
sporty car and so installed two, small, rear-hinged doors (a la
those on Saturn's Ion) to access the two, separate, rear seats.

Note there's no stationary pillar here between these front and
rear doors, which Mazda officials refer to as "freestyle" rather
than the common lingo, "suicide doors." Reportedly, adding
such a stationary pillar would have added nearly 6 inches to the
overall length of the RX-8.

I was skeptical about the rear-seat accommodations but found it
relatively easy to climb into the RX-8 back seats. I also found a
lot more leg and head room than I expected, especially if the
front seats are up a ways on their tracks.

A company spokesman noted the hip point for rear-seat riders is
about 3 inches higher than that for the front-seat riders, helping
explain why exit and entry back there is less cumbersome than
expected.

I still wouldn't want to ride back there on a long trip, because
the rear window pillar is thick and blocks views out and the tall
center console set atop the car's prominent center tunnel between
the two seats is confining.

About that styling
I wasn't too impressed by the RX-8's styling, inside or out.
Exterior styling has a lot of odd bulges here and there, including
a couple on the roof.

It's quite a different approach to a sporty car than, say, the
sleek and tautly pulled sheet metal of the Nissan 350Z.

Inside the RX-8, there's a similar sense of confusion as a couple
air vents and the center stack in the dashboard have a round
theme, while here and there, Mazda designers interjected softly
triangular shapes designed to be reminiscent of the rotary engine.

The test car's fabric seats, with side-ribbed material, and the
optional floor mats that had a different kind of pattern, added to
the helter-skelter feel. The seats were very comfortable.

Odds and ends
The speedometer in the RX-8 is a digital readout tucked inside the
tachometer. There is no analog speedo gauge.

The rotary engine isn't on display in the engine compartment. In
fact, it's covered by a black plastic cover. So is the RX-8 battery.

The rotary has a different sound than a regular internal
combustion engine--not as "buzzy" as a four cylinder and not as deep
in tone as a V6.

I don't like this woman very much....

From the MSN site:

"Today Ann is recognized as one of the nation's leading auto journalists and is a juror for the annual North American Car and Truck of the Year awards, composed of a select number of automotive journalists from around the country."

I have to say that this shows (once again) how total dim bulbs can profess to be 'auto experts', believe their own hype, obviously get others to believe their BS, and proceed to write reviews so lame, they should be mightly ashamed of their lack of having a clue, but they probably simply don't know enough to be!

So so sad. Bring on the **annual North American Car and Truck of the Year awards** Ann! :eek:

Sadly, this is not the first time Mazda had this issue. In 1999, the company restated the horsepower on its Miata roadster.


:mad: She's still a twit - it was the 2001 Miata.

Regards,
Gordon

Did she say the car doesn't sound as good as a v6.
The interior doesn't flow

I dont think any other reporter has shared the same view as this lady

0-60 in 6.4secs..................well, that is close to the estimates I have seen from 5.9 to 6.4, but how can she say that is not fast??.........all other reviews loved the performance...................I wonder if she got it out of second gear...........:D

only review I have seen as well that did not like the styling or interior..........and why bring up the Protege???........like come on...........it is nowhere close to being as fast in the 0-60 or 1/4mile times................oh well.................

I believe they have to be paid off or something. The one guy at the bottom of the page of the 3 reviewers is ususally the worst. I think he hates Mazdas.

That whole MSN autos site is messed up. Some nutt has left bad reviews leaving the 8 with a rating of 5.6 or something. Her review just tops it all off!]

biting my tongue lest i use some very bad words to describe this woman! Ann Job, the rx-8 is not the succesor to the rx-7!! got it?!
was rated at
159 lb-ft of torque at 5500 rpm. This moves the RX-8 from 0 to 60
miles an hour in an estimated 6.4 seconds, not exactly a top
number among sportst-ers.

In comparison, a 2003 Mazdaspeed Protégé with a turbocharged four
cylinder could put out 160 lb-ft of torque at a low, 3500 rpm. hmm, Ms. Job? and what was the 0-60 time of that protege? lets see that's 1 less lbs-ft of T but alot quicker for the 8. that's not good? and estimated? don't care to measure for yourself? some journalist you are.

and the rest of the article is simply copy and paste from her previous article. must be nice to write one article and get payed for it from several different companies.

oh yeah, autojournalists :rolleyes:

she has valid points, some subjective points (which i think are never presented well, as one side is always biased over the other in editorial media like this), and some "where the hell did you learn anything about cars in the first place?" points.

in short, i hate autojournalists, short of Berny and Dan (with whom i think it'd be cool to work :D).

Originally posted by zoom44
mice be nice to write one article

wow, the mice we have in our house we're trying to kill... should i instead be investing in tiny typewriters??

;)

Confused interior??? How about CONFUSED EXCUSE FOR A JOURNALIST!

You know, I have never liked her reviews.
Put a ferrari tag on it, and the "confused" style becomes "sleek sexy italian goodness"

She futher proves her ineptitude by attacking the rotery theme in the car, which ALL of us love!

And I think she is confusing the z with her battery powered date!

She is off of my xmas list, no cheese log this year!

Are you guys really this insecure? Did anyone notice that she rated it 8.75 (assuming out of 10)?

She's automatically a bad journalist because she doesn't like the exterior or the interior? Or because she called the Rx-8 a successor to the Rx-7? God forbid someone who doesn't read this forum may get confused given the naming convention.

Grow up.

She compared the Protege to show that the rotary doesn't produce a lot of torque, which is true. And compared to the Z06, Mustang Cobra SVT, Subaru Impreza STI, and Evo 8, 6.4 seconds isn't exactly a top number, but that doesn't really matter, right? Since the Rx-8 isn't about 0-60 times, right? And she never actually said 6.4 seconds wasn't fast.

Learn to take criticism. It seems as though some people are getting way to worked up over stuff like a review they don't agree with. Hell, she *liked* the car.

More generally, I think a lot of people on this forum take things too seriously. It's a car, not a religion.

I hope than ANN JOB is better at giving blowjobs (job) than being a automotive journalist IMO her articles SUCK ,

BDCLARY

GROWING OLD IS MANDATORY GROWING UP IS OPTIONAL.

blajajaahahaha

stupidity is funny
________
PRILOSEC LAWSUIT SETTLEMENTS (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/prilosec/)

Pooman no offence but you must have a good sense of humour to call your self pooman. As this forum is sometimes to serious I thought I would add some light-heartedness.

Originally posted by bdclary
More generally, I think a lot of people on this forum take things too seriously. It's a car, not a religion.

You are wrong. The car IS a religion. The problem is folks like you who do not get that.

I dont think I'd say the car is a religion but its close
I love cars
I think its more of a lifestyle than religion

Originally posted by mikeb
I dont think I'd say the car is a religion

no, you're wrong. wankelism is a mentality, a state of mind, a way of life... it's all consuming, the dizziness will open you eyyesss... :D <- *fanatic, as if you didn't know :p*

religion?? definitely. i worship the motor.

AMEN BROTHER!!!!

Found this today

http://autos.msn.com/vip/job.aspx?make=Mazda&model=RX-8&src=reviewers

Her cons ...WTF

Confused interior

Purists may prefer real sport coupe

Not the sleekest or prettiest exterior

As good a review as could be expected, I guess. Actually, Csaba Csere from C&D referred to the RX8's profile as "bulbous" in his review Rotary Revival (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=4346&page_number=1)

confused interior
I think the interior is awesome
8.75 is good though

Originally posted by SpacerX
As good a review as could be expected, I guess. Actually, Csaba Csere from C&D referred to the RX8's profile as "bulbous" in his review Rotary Revival (http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=4346&page_number=1)

refering to the car as bulbous doesn't mean it's a bad thing. :)

better then is being called a carton :p

My reaction…

I think Ann allocated too much space to the Hp snafu. Chances are the write up won’t be revised until a significant alteration is made to the RX-8; long before that, the reduced Hp rating will be ancient history.

I also think she was a little harsh on the rear seat accommodations. If Mazda used language like “opulence, abundance, luxuriance, etc.” she’d have a point but what they said is that the RX-8 is a “true four seater” which is clearly true.

My last criticism with her report concerns the engine / battery cover remark. Show me one single upscale car today that doesn’t have them; you can’t. Mazda cleverly mounted the engine cover so it could quickly be removed / replaced without wear. I actually take the engine cover design as an indication Mazda had the enthusiast in mind during development.

Now Ann could have ripped on the third gen’s short engine life & high operational costs. Instead, she pointed out how long Mazda has been making rotary engines & even included a reference to a prestigious endurance race victory.

Additionally, she could have mentioned the relatively poor fuel economy or the less then neck snapping skid pad figures or the horrendous depreciation first & second gen. RX-7’s experienced but she didn’t.

In terms of the comments about the RX-8 having confusing internal & external styling. Those are completely subjective assessments to which she is entitled & I happen to agree with her…I almost cried the first time I say those Chipmunk Cheek fenders.

I don’t believe Ann made the best use of her available space but I do think her over all assessment was pretty fair.

I think she prefers SUVs, she just gave the new VW toureg a 9.5. To each is own, I think SUVs are just a nuisance, but then that's just me.

Hmm.


RX 7 Guy,
It will be interesting to see how the RX8 copies are treated in the reviews as they appear - Subaru, Jaguar, Chevy, Ferrari Scagg -whatever.

I find the RX 8 to be a revolutionary design and apparently many car builders seem to agree scrambling to bring their concepts to production. The front of the RX 8 greatly resembles classic sports cars. The 350 Z which Ann gave a higher score to is more contemporary in style but also more trendy especially inside. A great deal of sprayed silver plastic, etc. make a less timeless appearance. That car rides rougher and noisier and the act of shifting takes effort albeit with greater torque lunge.

Whatever the RX 8 is, it is without dispute, a well-thought out design. The performance figures seem to be all over the board with several magazines quoting 5.9 second 0-60. What seems ridiculous though is how some people say the car is underpowered. How can a car with a 0-60 like that be considered underpowered? People forget that the torque figure is nearly half again as much with a high RPM car. They read the 159 ft lb. and thing geez but what they dont think of is 9000 rpm and gearing. That means that the car is quite capable of spirited driving. I thnk it is one of the best looking cars on the road myself and was shocked the first time I saw one and the expected MSRP. The car handling is one of the best balanced cars I have driven. I was actually shocked at the G35 sport and 350Z (nice cars) but the ride could be compared to street skating or an old vette. Sporty but compromised. I know that it seems like I am biased but actually I determined this even before buying the 8. I contacted MSN/Ann and questioned the interior comments. The interior theme of circles is only accented by the rotary which is inside and out. Neat car.

i can't stand people who can't find nothing wrong with somethin so they take the littliest thing wrong and make it seem big. what a SOB. the exterior styling is great, way better than the 350z. and how can the interior confuse your? mazda made it slick and simple. I mean damn, she doesn't know anything about a sports car besides if it has 2 doors or not.

Well here are my two cents...

I read Ann Job's review before I bought my 8. In fact I felt it was a flattering review by someone who admittedly wasn't pushing the car and still felt its potential as to handling and the fact it could "dart out in traffic" and zing slow pokes in traffic.

She didn't like the styling---so what? I do, and so do hundreds of folks who have felt compelled to track me down or stop me to ask me questions about my 8.

On a scale of 1 to 10 My 8 is a 15! I love it. She likes the the 350Z---be my guest. You can have my 8 "when you pry it from my cold dead hands"--- a la Charlton Heston NRA national meeting 2002 (course he wasn't talking about his 8--I am)

------------------------------
Cons:

Confused interior
Purists may prefer real sport coupe
Not the sleekest or prettiest exterior

------------------------------

Confused interior? I'm confused... What's so hard to figure out? If you have no common sense, and can read... RTFM! Maybe she couldn't figure out how the rotating side vents worked and didn't understand why the A/C was blowing on her lap. I love the dash/interior/controls of this car!!! Took me about 90 seconds of looking and fiddling around to know how everything worked. Maybe she had to make a deadline for her editor.


Purists? Aren't Rotorheads purists? Yeah... it's not a real sport coupe. Are the SATURN IONS considered sport coupes? I think they call it a sedan... "RX-8 sport coupe" naaaa... "RX-8 Sport Sedan" naaaa... "RX-8 wow... nice f'n car" yeah... that's it. A purist would prefer a New Viper... can you spare $90K?


Not the sleekest or prettiest exterior? I work with 125+ people, have around 30 friends, 14 local relatives and countless compliments from strangers... never have I ever gotten a negative or even a neutral comment from anyone. I know it's not everyone's cup o tea, and that's fine... people actually like the look of the PTCruisers (sorry, I think it should replace the Hearse). Go figure. Sure... it's no 360 Spider or Enzo, but it's better looking than most other cars (especially daily drivers) on the road today. Maybe the VW beetle is more to her liking. Yeah, I'm biased... but I think that car reviewers should realize that their reviews usually come with pictures, and you know what they say about pictures. The reviewer's personal tastes on cars should be left out of it... It's be interesting to see what they personally drive.

My $0.02

Peace

A telling feature of such heavily formatted reviews is that each review must have exactly 3 Pros and 3 Cons. This sort of implies that car design is a zero-sum game, where each strength necessarily implies a weakness elsewhere (as if features were bound to opposite sides of a see-saw).

Imagine trying to write the MSN review summary for a classic dog like a Yugo or AMC Pacer. Guess what, a Chrysler K-car has 3 pros and 3 cons, just like the RX8!

Of course this is nonsense, and one of the reasons I love my RX8 is that the sum of the strengths far outpaces the sum of the negatives.

Of course, the summary also doesn't indicate the relative importance or weight of each Pro or Con. Does the car have somewhat better handling than the norm and a unusably confused interior or does it have outstanding handling and a slightly confused interior? A reviewer may like the handling of both the RX8 and a WRX and dislike the exterior styling of both, but the bullet points lose the important points that the handling are in the same ballpark but one turns heads (obviously more than a few people like the styling) and the other gets lost in the parking lot.

This is another reason I love my RX8. I feel its strengths are good across the board (and match what I value) and its weaknesses are minimized (and tend to match what I don't much value). It isn't just fun to drive, it's very fun to drive. The AC is a little weak, but it's only a little weak. Given that some trade-offs have to be made, the RX8 not only comes out well ahead of the game, but manages to put the "very"s and the "just a little bits" in the right places. Other cars I considered all seem to put a "very" in at least one negative category: uncomfortable, bland, ugly, noisy, expensive, etc. I'd give the RX8 its worst negative in MPG, but frankly mileage (like insurance or other abstract external factors) is not something I notice about a car while I'm driving it :)

I also think the RX8 recognizes the law of diminishing returns better than anything else I considered. Sure, it would be great to have more HP, but I rarely get the chance to push to car to the limits, so the additional HP would be a marginal improvement. The degree to which +50HP improves the pleasure of driving a car depends a lot on where its added: a +50HP increase from 220HP to 270HP doesn't add nearly as much as a +50HP increase from 170HP to 220HP. This is the Viper falacy- adding yet still more power yields less and less additional fun. I find the RX8 approaches the threshold of diminishing returns with a fine eye. The cockpit is comfortable, but any more luxury would frankly be a waste. The back seats are about right for how often I put someone back there (reasonably often, but for relatively short trips). I've had power to spare before my safetly and/or speeding ticket paranoia has taken over under every condition I've driven it [which excludes, admitedly, street racing and such]. A 350Z has more raw power, but how much of that power lies beyond my threshold?

Each of us want different things from our cars, or else we'd all end up driving the same thing. Any reviewer obviously values some things but not others, and any mass market forum such as MSN or CR is going to skew its bias towards their concept of the Average Joe. A good reviewer reviews from the point of view of a likely consumer, but sometimes even a good reviewer can't get into the headspace of someone with fundamentally different values to make meaningful assessments [I could give a much more sensible review of a hard rock CD, even though I don't much care for the genre, than I could of a hip-hop CD because I think I have a grasp of the aesthetics of the one but not the other].

Finally, it is encouraging that despite all this, she did in fact give the RX8 a very respectable 8.something out of 10 (suggesting that she recognizes that her Pros are strong Pros and her Cons are minor Cons), and that here Cons are much more subjective and external. If you like the exterior styling (I do, and so do most people I know), don't find the interior design confused (no complaints here), and aren't a "purist" who would prefer a real [read "standard", "traditional" or "conventional"] sports coupe the bullet point summary suddenly reads as 3 Pros and 0 Cons. The fact that she did not find anything substantial (in the sense of not being purely matters of personal taste) negatives is a good thing.

SGC